9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ureshi) 1. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 22.1.2004 passed by CEGAT. 2. The petition arises in the following background. Petitioner no.1 is a company. On 26.2.1991, officers of the central excise department during the visit to factory premises of petitioners' company noticed certain irregularities in clearing goods on mis-declaration. On 12.5.1992, a show cause notice was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of Rs.10 lakh each on two directors. The petitioner challenged the same before the tribunal. Along with such appeal, the petitioner prayed for stay also. Though the order passed by the tribunal on such stay petitions are not on record, we have gathered basic facts from the draft writ petition of 2004 as at Annexure-K to the petition giving certain factual details. We are informed that such pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application, the tribunal passed its impugned order on 22.1.2004. The tribunal noted that the proceedings before the BIFR was still pending and BIFR has not yet declared the company as a sick unit. The petitioner also offered to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and prayed for such modification of order of pre-deposit. The tribunal however, dismissed such application. It is against this order that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation is coming forth why such belated approach should be permitted before the Court. Merely suggesting that the petition though filed was not moved or that because of financial difficulties, the petitioner could not approach the High Court, would not be sufficient. 5. The financial hardship would certainly be one of the grounds for considering what should be the appropriate condition for pre-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
